6 bonifacio v rtc

8/2/2019 6 Bonifacio v Rtc

1/3

6.Bonifacio vs RTC (Bel)May 5, 2010 Carpio-Morales

FACTS:

Gimenez on behalf of the Yuchengco family and of the Malayan Insurance Co.Inc., filed a criminal complaint before the Makati prosecutor's office, for 13 counts of libelunder Art. 355 in relation to Art. 353 of the RPC against the petitioner who were officersand trustees of PEPCI. A complaint was also filed against a certain John Doe. It wasalleged the upon accessing the PEPCI website he saw numerous articles maliciouslyand recklessly caused to be published by the accused containing highly derogatorystatements and false accusation attacking the Yuchengco Family, YGC and Malayan.Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the grounds that it failedto vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC; the acts complained of in the Information arenot punishable by law since internet libel is not covered by Article 353 of the RPC; andthe Information is fatally defective for failure to designate the offense charged and the

acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense of libel.

ISSUE: Was it sufficiently alleged that the libelous articles were printed and firstpublished by the accused in Makati thereby vesting jurisdiction upon the publicrespondent?

HELD: NoThe purpose of the amendment to Article 360 was to prevent the indiscriminate orarbitrary laying of the venue in libel cases in distant, isolated or far-flung areas,meant to accomplish nothing more than harass or intimidate an accused.

The venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited to onlyeither of two places, namely: 1) where the complainant actually resides at the time ofthe commission of the offense; or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was printedand first published. If the second option was used, the Information must allege withparticularity where the defamatory article was printed and first published, as evidencedor supported by, for instance, the address of their editorial or business offices in thecase of newspapers, magazines or serial publications. This pre-condition becomesnecessary in order to forestall any inclination to harass.

This measure cannot be expected when it comes to defamatory material appearing onthe internet as there would be no way of determining the situs of its printing and firstpublication. To credit Gimenezs premise of equating his first access to the defamatoryarticle on petitioners website in Makati with printing and first publication would spawnthe very ills that the amendment to Article 360 of the RPC sought to discourage andprevent. It hardly requires much imagination to see the chaos that would ensue insituations where the websites author or writer, a blogger or anyone who postsmessages therein could be sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines that the privatecomplainant may have allegedly accessed the offending website.


2/3


3/3

6 bonifacio v rtc

Documents